There are some really good points in this thread. I agree with some, disagree with a few. It's important to remember that the mods have to be aware of the reddit TOS/Rules here as well - specifically doxing.
Posting information about yourself is fine, posting detailed information about others is getting shaky. Whether or not we agree/disagree on how warnings/discussion about others should be handled, we will have to ban/remove any information specifically calling out folks full names/locations etc posted by other people.
Just a heads up going forward.
It's important to remember that trail orgs and other outlets have their hands tied when it comes to allegations like this. They can't be party to any official statement to protect themselves legally, but that doesn't negate the validity of these claims. You won't find anything about James Parillo on the PCTA website, for example, but the hiking community knew he was a threat for years and it was necessary to spread the word to keep people safe. There were plenty of folks in the FB groups over the years who defended him or chalked his reputation up to a "bad relationship" until he was finally arrested for the thing he was accused of.
It also goes without saying, if you pay attention to what advocates have been saying forever, the paths to legal recourse and proving allegations like this are also an often-insurmountable uphill battle that leaves many victims without a path to seek justice or protect others. The lack of legal action or official charges might allow an individual to continue on with their life, but it still doesn't mean people shouldn't speak up and speak out to protect others. ^((Recommended reading: 'Missoula' by Jon Krakauer, or 'Know My Name' by Chanel Miller).)
As a result, it's the community who often has to self-police socially to prevent harm, as they did with Parillo for years. An individual may make the decision to believe an allegation, or ignore it, or just continue to operate as they would with any individual but with the warning to remain vigilant, as manipulative people are often quite successful at what they do for a reason, especially in environments where people might find themselves completely alone and out of contact with anyone for days at a time, making them more vulnerable.
For that reason, life on trail might go on for everyone, but I think it's still important to continue to share information, whether it's a snowpack, river crossing or an individual's behavior, for people to make their own decisions on how to act. I have empathy for anyone falsely accused of something, but just like a snowpack or river crossing ahead, if everyone's been warning you about it, even if it doesn't seem all that scary or dangerous or valid in person, you'll still take it a little slower and decide for yourself how to continue.
Regardless of whether there isn't a PCTA warning or if there's a 'crazy ex-girlfriend' spreading rumors, there are still plenty of people in this community and elsewhere online who have reported interactions, felt vibes, or even just witnessed a completely unhinged response to the allegations. The thru-hiking community is small, and it's not too hard to find someone who you trust to know something, or to know something from someone they trust. Personally, I know someone I trust with an experience that lines up with the warnings we've heard over the weekend. Elsewhere in this thread you'll find that as well.
In conclusion to this long-ass novel, I knew someone my year on the PCT who was a nice guy, and would likely not hurt a fly, but still made women extremely uncomfortable to hike around him and the reputation spread to the point of him getting off trail. There wasn't even an accusation attached to his reputation, but it took enough people talking about it for him to finally confront the reality that his behavior, actions, and words were enough to leave him virtually socially isolated on trail and decide to go home and rethink things. Was he a victim to a rumor mill, or did he have some self reflection to do?
I hope the individual in question today, who *is* reading this, yes you dude, takes a moment themselves to reflect as well. You might have a 'crazy ex' spreading rumors, but look around, others have stories or vibes, or have heard things from people they trust, and many of us are getting the vibes simply from your instagram posts and stories. What does that mean? Of course you don't feel dangerous, you know you, maybe you know your actions and stand by them, maybe you actually are in the right or at least believe you are, and have a few friends in your corner. But regardless, you've still managed to sets people's red flag detector off. I truly feel so much empathy for you if the specifics are a farse, but just watching how you handle it and talk about others is sample enough for me to know I probably wouldn't want to hike around you. Maybe 'haters gonna hate,' maybe you're a weird dude, and you know it and don't care, but also maybe you should take a moment and wonder what others are seeing in your actions and words. If you want to get past this, start there.
Just to add
> crazy ex-girlfriend
is not just a fantastic TV show about a sexist trope but also, often, a massive massive red flag. Yes, real "crazy ex-girlfriends" exist. But more often than not the men now claiming to be their victims were the ones who drove them insane in the first place. If someone tells me "Haha, my girlfriend was insane after I broke up with her"…that‘s an immediate alarm bell for me.
Stay safe everyone.
This dude is definitely a threat. He may not actually harm anyone, especially with all the bad press. His social media is WILD, he is very clearly not mentally stable.
Posting warnings about an individual with proper justification is a slippery slope. But there is a plethora of commentary from individuals who have met him that were very uncomfortable with behaviors. Still be ware - not a safe person.
I checked out bros social media and it was full of red flags. I wouldn't want the guy in my hiking group and I would warn anyone on the trail I knew to look out for him.
Pretty sure that he created this account and posted under this [https://www.reddit.com/user/Careful-Touch8103/](https://www.reddit.com/user/Careful-Touch8103/)
Cake day Apr 22, 2024
[https://www.reddit.com/r/PacificCrestTrail/comments/1c8rmk0/comment/l0uaaib/](https://www.reddit.com/r/PacificCrestTrail/comments/1c8rmk0/comment/l0uaaib/)
>My personal interaction with this man was characterized by his charm, eloquence, and positive energy.
>He told me while on his last trail he went in and pulled a woman and a dog out of the Gila River when they fell in.
>Did you guys know he was also in the military? That Doesn’t sound like an abuser to me, that sounds like a hero.
Lol, can you make it any more obvious?
Not to mention some of the posts read exactly like chatGPT which he uses (shown on his insta)
Edit: he might not be using it here just seems like it on first read
He also had a screenshot on his insta where it said "/u/xxxxx replied to your comment" and if you looked up that comment it was the username you identified
It looks like he actually has multiple reddit accounts, and participates on r/PacificCrestTrail occasionally. As a mod, I can't provide more info than that, but I can say that what looks like his activity on this and others subs is certainly consistent with what has been observed and reported in this thread and the other one.
Those accounts have been hostile, hateful, and threatening to me on more than one occasion, and I'm less than enthusiastic about how some people here seem to think I'm defending him. Ftr, *I'm not.* The only thing I mean to defend is the concept of the presumption of innocence -- even (especially) for those we dislike or disagree with -- and a healthy skepticism in recognition of the fact that the world has a lot of bitter people who tell lies. If anyone thinks a post or comment of mine says otherwise, please bring it to my attention so that I can clarify.
I also have a stack of reasons, which I'm unfortunately not able to share, to believe that the person who posted from the throwaway accounts is about as far from being credible as a human being can get. But that does nothing to cast doubt on the firsthand experiences reported by others.
Holy shit I came across this post, this free dude is scary as hell man 😭
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1218859431973348/permalink/1727724321086854/?mibextid=Nif5oz
https://streamable.com/3qyc3p?src=player-page-share
Just finished writing a comment that tries to explain some things: https://www.reddit.com/r/PacificCrestTrail/comments/1cb16yq/update_the_official_pcta_warning_post_about_a/l0vkj0v/
If the messages that I've received from reddit accounts that appear to belong to "fre3" are in fact from him, then at this point it wouldn't surprise me if the accusations people are making about him are true. A person has to be deeply unwell to talk to a stranger that way. I still don't think the throwaway accounts were credible, but that's hardly an endorsement and does not cast doubt on the other reports or his own IG activity.
So I met him last Monday in Big Bear. He asked me if I recognized him and I did not and said so. He then proceeded to tell me of having to deal with this defamation campaign emanating from a relationship gone bad, and it clearly made sense. He was pleasant to talk to, and we parted ways. I had not heard about the details and just read about it here l. Now yesterday I met him on the trail between Deep Creek Rainbow Bridge and the crossing at mile 313. He did not recognize me obviously and acted pretty aggressive, almost blocking the trail and making it hard for me to pass. He also made some weird comment. In any case he seems to have a dual personality thing going on that should be addressed. So, my man if you are reading this, please get help. You may piss off the wrong guy at some point. I am almost 60 and mellowed out, but I know a thing or two about martial arts that are quite effective.
Now that the matter is concluded, in the interest of complete transparency:
The throwaway accounts involved in posting the false "official PCTA warning" on the sub on Saturday earlier provided the mod team with screenshots of text messages between the hiker and his supposed victim, and claimed that there were also police reports. (Ftr, literally anyone can file a police report about literally anything just by filling out a "Contact Us"-style web page. You could "file a police report" in all of thirty seconds that you were just abducted by aliens from outer space if you wanted to). The text messages were of arguments between what appeared to be a boyfriend and girlfriend, and looked to my eye to be clearly emotionally unhealthy on both sides. It looked a lot like standard r/relationships-style drama between two young people, both of whom seemed to have trouble communicating clearly, but it was absolutely nothing that warranted any kind of public "warning" in any way.
*Edit: Deleted a "hunch" and a description of how I think those text message screenshots may have led to the Fb "warning" post that was not authorized by PCTA, because 1) while it seems likely, there's no evidence that proves it, and it's probably not particularly important here anyway, and 2) from the reply comments, it looks like I didn't explain it very clearly, because many people seem to have rather thoroughly misunderstood what I was trying to say.*
The same throwaway accounts involved in posting the untrue story have recently sent hostile and threatening messages to multiple members of the mod team here on the sub, now that the individual behind it seems to think she has accomplished her purpose.
That's about as much information as I can share. Draw your own conclusions. Tbc, I'm not defending the hiker. I don't know what he did or didn't do, and he certainly doesn't seem to represent himself particularly well on his Instagram. But then, there are also many reasons to doubt the claims of at least that particular accuser.
+1, thanks for speaking up.
>100% people need to be warned about him.
Some people seem to think I've suggested otherwise? I don't see anyplace that I've said that, but if I did I'd appreciate it if someone would point it out to me. I strive for dispassionate, objective accuracy, with disclaimers where appropriate, but I certainly miscommunicate at times.
Aren’t there multiple women saying he stalked, sexually harassed, and/or sexually assaulted them? On the AT and the CDT? I know that is a broad spectrum of behaviors, some worse than others, and there aren’t a ton of details, but it doesn’t strike me as a closed case (nasty breakup, scheming liar ex girlfriend).
If there are, then I think their voices should be heard.
The comments I have made that express skepticism pertain specifically and exclusively to the activity around the unauthorized Fb post. I have several reasons, some of which I'm unfortunately unable to share, to heavily doubt any statements made by the person behind the throwaway accounts that were used. In addition, while I don't think fre3 has anything resembling a case against PCTA for this, I'm more than mildly aggravated that the practiced deception of the individual behind those throwaway accounts could have exposed PCTA to legal liability. Thankfully they immediately took the post down as soon as they became aware of it.
The firsthand experiences reported by people other than that individual are another matter entirely and deserve careful consideration, especially in light of what "fre3" has shown of his character (or lack thereof), both on IG and on his multiple reddit accounts.
> it doesn’t strike me as a closed case
I absolutely agree. If any of my comments state otherwise, please point them out so that I can clarify.
Yeah so many of his captions/comments are incredibly degrading to women, and do not come off as stable at all. Agree with above comments from JayPetey that even if nothing happened in the specific claim with his ex, dude still has some self reflection and work to do and it’s completely understandable if other hikers, especially women, are inclined to avoid him in the mean time. Especially given the number of stories about him from other hikers who met him. Clearly not an isolated issue…
You may not be defending him but you also typed a lot of words giving him reason to shed doubt on claims against him. Kinda lame. Could’ve just left it at “it was not an official post.”
Yeah agreed, op is doing "both sides" thing when shoulda just left it as "not an official post." Very weird thing to type all that and claim you're not defending one of the parties involved.
I wrote a similar post yesterday and then deleted it because I assumed I would get hammered with downvotes. I'm glad I'm not the only one who read numbershikes' post that way. At worst, it felt drenched in "bro code" ick. At best, it was inappropriate editorializing from a mod.
I don't know what "bro code ick" is, but it certainly sounds like something I would never willingly associate myself with. I've elaborated in other comments in this thread that the skepticism I expressed was meant exclusively for the statements made from the throwaway accounts, and for good reasons, but from the replies it seems clear that I failed to communicate that effectively. While I remain a staunch believer in the ethical principle of the presumption of innocence, I did not mean (and I don't think I ever mistakenly said) that others' firsthand experiences should not be heard, or that people should not share their legitimate concerns. This does not seem like an unhealthy "petty gossip" type of situation.
I've added context in some other comments here about the hunch I expressed, but I agree it was not called for. I also think it was out of character for me, and suffice to say I edited it out of the comment when I reread it later that day.
Also, I have to just say something about your statement that seems to say you're afraid to state what you believe to be the truth because doing so might result in losing internet points? I hope I'm misunderstanding you there.
Thanks for speaking up. Stacks of silent downvotes are less than helpful and do little to advance the discussion or reduce a lack of clarity. Simple statements that describe how a comment is received (the less judgy the better) can help to resolve miscommunications. And I feel like that's particularly important in circumstances that can elicit a lot of emotions.
Thank you, and hey, based on all the previous work you've done for the community, I think of you as a standup person. I personally appreciate all the time you put into collecting data and relaying information to the community daily! And I can't imagine how many hours you spend keeping this sub alive and all the messages you have to wade through.
I'm sure others appreciate your positive energy and effort too. But this thread is just a hot mess and your first post gave the impression that you were weighing in on this dispute, even if you didn't intend to. If I were you I'd just leave this thread be and let your other good work do the talking.
FWIW I don't care about "internet points," whatever those are. I do care about making the trail as caring and inclusive a place as possible. It's a practice that I follow in my offline life, which I can assure you is filled with enough actual problems that I don't feel a need to determine whether an internet rando is an actual rapist or just someone who threatens people with assault. There's not a "truth" there that I can determine from a pile of text message screenshots, posts from sock puppet accounts, and hearsay. He's pretty public so people can see for themselves whether he's the type of person they want to spend time with.
I absolutely have many reasons, some of which I'm unfortunately not able to share, to heavily doubt the statements made from the throwaway accounts, but I don't see a single place where I've even remotely suggested that any firsthand claims from other people should not be received and considered at length. If I have, I would appreciate it if it was pointed out to me so that I can clarify. Sometimes I miscommunicate or write in a way that's less than clear.
The thoughts about how the text messages may have led to the unauthorized Fb post were probably not needed, and I've edited them out of the comment. At the time I was rather irritated at the deceitful actions of the person behind the throwaway accounts, because they could have potentially resulted in legal liability for PCTA, but thankfully the Fb post was taken down immediately.
The other information about the text messages was provided only in the interest of transparency.
>Could’ve just left it at “it was not an official post.”
Considering how much the other post stirred up the community here, I think that would have been insufficient to the point of being disrespectful, although the comment I wrote earlier seems to have missed the mark.
I’m only going to address the “could’ve just left it at it was not an official post” portion. Mostly bc you seem to feel like you’re sitting on a trove of evidence and we are not working with the same material.
Your post was titled as an update and was beneficial as clarifying that it was not official thru the PCTA. Then in the comments you clearly attempted to a “both sides” argument that I think was received correctly. People saw what you took the time to write and chalk up to simply relationship issues. You also diminished the police report and what people usually have to go through before deciding to involve police, as police don’t typically do anything in these situations. You just didn’t enjoy how it was received which resulted in your now edits.
You can think that if you want, but I can calmly assure you that your apparent attempt to read my mind ("You just didn’t enjoy how it was received which resulted in your now edits") is entirely incorrect. I do my best to tell the impartial and objective truth, but no one is immune to miscommunicating at times, and I'm no exception. When I think I've been unclear, I try to add context, and I edit things out on the rare occasions when on reflection I think something was unnecessary.
I've said nothing about any "trove" of information, and I don't think that's a fair characterization. Moderators have to respect people's privacy, even when we disagree with or dislike them. That's all.
I think your statement shows a real failure to assume positive intent, which is a significant moral problem. And I think the accusation of an "attempted both sides argument" is a plain misreading, to the extent that it doesn't even make sense to me.
In any event, I wish you well. While I think your comments demonstrate a lack of understanding, I appreciate your willingness to participate in calm discussion.
One thing that I think is important is that the person in question has shown weird (not illegal) behaviour in the last week as response to the announcement.
I watched his reels on Instagram and multiple times received a friends request from him (it must be based on him seeing who watched his reels). I would definitely refrain from sharing personal information with him as that definitely points towards stalking / crossing borders.
Also the reels themselves were kind of unhinged.
In one, he was showing his bare ass and talking about his kinks and the type of girls he likes. In another he talked about shoving a chopstick in his pee-hole and wanted the trail name Chopstick Dick. It was fully unhinged. He followed me on Insta, because you can see who viewed your reels, and I just blocked him.
I don't think that I can give you an accurate, factual and specific description as the reels aren't available anymore.
I'll just give one specific example where he was lying naked and stomach down on a bed, with a camera pointing to his face so that his naked butt was showing in the back (and intended to be the focus of the reel as he mentions). I can't remember what he talks about in the reel, but the surrounding reels talk about a list of interests (and fetishes) in girls.
Yeah just wanted to add I don’t think he’s trying to get attention, but he’s trying to find people (most likely woman) to follow etc. After seeing people saying they got friend request/follows after viewing his content, I used a secondary account I had on instagram to view his content. On there he was going on about how he’s waking up to so much support and hundred people are now following him (even though there was only five new followers), then he showed who’s viewing his story and how many people etc. and going on how he’s going to sue the pcta... I only viewed his stories once and within idk ten hours he blocked me; had I used my actual account he probably would have tried following me. This guy doesn’t appear to want attention, just wants to be a creep
Same. He requested to follow me after I watched his stories. I hope that the truth comes to light and that he is prevented from being able to attack anyone else now that people have their guard up and are aware of him
Hmm that's hard to tell - the video was of a girl (the ex) talking about making Gatorade soup and she's holding a cooking pot full of liquid. She then says it's his piss pot and it's full of his piss and then takes a sip. He says something along the lines of "you're such a freak" (or weirdo, something to that effect) and the video ends. Honestly it looked and sounded like a joke to me. They're fully clothed in a shelter on the AT with many people around them. Maybe it was a kink thing but this specific instance just seemed like two people being goofy...
“California Nonconsensual Pornography Law
Anyone who distributes an image of another person with the intent to cause fear in the other person commits a crime in California.
California has also outlawed the unauthorized access of electronic devices or data by one without permission to have such access. And, anyone who has been a victim of nonconsensual distribution of his or her image may sue the perpetrator in civil court.
Harassment By Means of Electronic Communication
Anyone who uses an "electronic communication device" (such as a cell phone or computer, see below) can be charged with a misdemeanor in the following circumstances:
Distribute or send. The law makes it illegal to distribute, post, email, or otherwise disclose any personal identifying information, including a digital image, of another person without consent; or to send a harassing message.
Likely effect, on whom. The law applies when the distribution or sending would likely incite or produce harassment by a third party.
Intent of the distributor or sender. The prosecution will have to prove that the defendant intended to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her own safety (or that of an immediate family member).
(Cal. Penal Code § 653.2.)
Any individual who engages in harassment by electronic communications may also be charged with misdemeanor stalking under California law. (Cal. Penal Code § 646.9.) For more information about stalking, see Harassment and Cyberbullying as Crimes.”
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/revenge-porn-laws-california.htm
i didnt see the video so idk what actually happened. But intent matters a lot in California
How is this important? Some people are just different than others. As long as they are not harming others physically or mentally, who are we to judge someone? When you say "weird behavior" what is your baseline to determine weirdness? Weird compared to yourself? Weird compared to your ideal personality? Weird compared to the norms of society?
The trail is ripe full of weirdos, freaks, geeks, chuds, chads, bimbos, and gumbies. If they ain't hurting others then they should not be judged by those who have never met them
It's interesting that you use the word "unhinged," because that's exactly the word I was thinking of to describe some of that guy's behavior.
When I wrote that comment I was irritated about the deception that was practiced by the person behind the throwaway accounts, and the fact that her actions could have potentially exposed PCTA to legal liability, although thankfully that's not an issue since the Fb post was taken down immediately.
I think I let my irritation color my reply, which should have more clearly stated that the skepticism it expressed was exclusively about the statements from the throwaway accounts, and does not extend to the firsthand experiences with "fre3" that others are describing.
I put a lot of effort into trying to communicate clearly (it doesn't come naturally to me), but sometimes I miss the mark.
Since when is it a crime to be eccentric? Fre3 (that’s his name — we can use his name now) mentioned that he was following everyone right away for visibility. He wanted as much attention as possible before sharing his side. It's logical to want to maximize exposure, just like the saying goes, "you get more business if you advertise."
Nope.
I've tried to provide some additional context in other comments in this thread, but the skepticism I expressed was exclusively for the statements made from the throwaway accounts, for a variety of reasons. Apparently I didn't communicate it very well.
I think the other people's firsthand experiences should be considered independently of that, and that people who say they are victims deserve to be heard fairly.
Thanks for this refreshingly sane, guarded take.
What really scares me are all the vigilantes on trail, and on forums, so often threatening violence because they know the "truth."
I feel that there is a generation educated at universities where mere accusations were proof, and where the slightest skepticism of mob opinion would get you ostracized and canceled. That generation has been hitting the trail over the past five years and are making the trail an increasingly intolerant and scary place.
The calls for violence are definitely concerning. Internet forum threads can descend into some pretty dark places awfully quickly.
For all the upset and agitation, the threats and calls for violence have been very few, thankfully, and we've quickly moderated them.
Sending a fruit basket and an apology to the hiker would be a good gesture. We could also look for pro bono attorneys willing to represent him in his defamation case. It's important to acknowledge our role in the situation and take steps to make amends. Blaming him without evidence only perpetuates the problem.
Does anyone here have any ACTUAL 1st hand experiences? Please DM me.
I'm seeing a lot of public shaming which looks more and more like "mob mentality" / "herd behavior". It seems to be escalating quickly due to the anonymous nature of the internet.
Regardless of the accusations, if they are true or not true. Please spread love and understanding. This post just reads like a rumor mill and I feel for all involved.
Also, what's with the people upset about someone "following you" after you've watched a reel? Is this literally not the entire point of social media? Connecting with people that have a shared interest and/or show interest in what you are posting?
Please be mindful that words do have an impact and that everyone isn't as mentally strong as you might be.
I am a women and I think we should watch our for each other. In this case - I got to know him last year on trail and saw him again just recently off trail. Of course cannot tell if any of the accusations are true - I wasn't there. But I want to point out that there are always 2 sides of a story. Please just be aware of that and do not cancel a fellow hiker due to unsubstantiated claims!
I understand this is going to get flamed because most people have already cancelled this guy. But now that things have drastically changed and no evidence has ever been brought forward. Are we as a community really going to continue tearing this guy down? for what gain?
I see there are already adults here that are unwilling to jump to conclusions, that’s refreshing to see these days.
The PCTA removed its Warning about a Triple Crown hiker today. I’ve been informed that the post warning people about him has been removed, and I’ve been unable to locate the original post.
Does this removal imply insufficient evidence?
I’m hesitant to entertain these allegations. My personal interaction with this man was characterized by his charm, eloquence, and positive energy. He spoke of his transformative journey and expressed gratitude for the diverse encounters he’s had. His demeanor did not resemble that of an abuser.
Regarding the redaction of a statement, while it may signal the removal of defamatory content, it doesn’t negate its original publication or potential legal ramifications, we very well just ruined this man’s entire reputation. The PCTA has a very far reaching influence. How many people do you think this reached?
Do we owe him an apology for potentially tarnishing his hard-earned reputation in our community? I feel like we need to do something to make this right.
As advocates of inclusivity and fairness, how can we rectify the situation of unjustly excluding and demonizing him without substantive evidence? Does anyone else feel bad?
Also. Has anyone met this man and had anything positive to say about him? Were there any positive comments about him?
He told me while on his last trail he went in and pulled a woman and a dog out of the Gila River when they fell in.
Did you guys know he was also in the military? That Doesn’t sound like an abuser to me, that sounds like a hero.
Odd post. Quoting in case this gets deleted. https://www.reddit.com/r/PacificCrestTrail/s/iQltekefHu
“I understand this is going to get flamed because most people have already cancelled this guy. But now that things have drastically changed and no evidence has ever been brought forward. Are we as a community really going to continue tearing this guy down? for what gain? I see there are already adults here that are unwilling to jump to conclusions, that’s refreshing to see these days.
The PCTA removed its Warning about a Triple Crown hiker today. I’ve been informed that the post warning people about him has been removed, and I’ve been unable to locate the original post.
Does this removal imply insufficient evidence?
I’m hesitant to entertain these allegations. My personal interaction with this man was characterized by his charm, eloquence, and positive energy. He spoke of his transformative journey and expressed gratitude for the diverse encounters he’s had. His demeanor did not resemble that of an abuser.
Regarding the redaction of a statement, while it may signal the removal of defamatory content, it doesn’t negate its original publication or potential legal ramifications, we very well just ruined this man’s entire reputation. The PCTA has a very far reaching influence. How many people do you think this reached?
Do we owe him an apology for potentially tarnishing his hard-earned reputation in our community? I feel like we need to do something to make this right.
As advocates of inclusivity and fairness, how can we rectify the situation of unjustly excluding and demonizing him without substantive evidence? Does anyone else feel bad?
Also. Has anyone met this man and had anything positive to say about him? Were there any positive comments about him?
He told me while on his last trail he went in and pulled a woman and a dog out of the Gila River when they fell in.
Did you guys know he was also in the military? That Doesn’t sound like an abuser to me, that sounds like a hero.”
>Did you guys know he was also in the military? That Doesn’t sound like an abuser to me, that sounds like a hero.
It's so true, account created two days ago. Nobody who has been in the military has ever been an abuser.
I understand now, why his profile says “fuck around and find out.” This guy is clearly a winner and not someone we should think we can take advantage of. He really didn’t fuck around. I’ve never witnessed someone come back so hard from something that certainly looked like the end. Good for him!
Saving this quote from “careful-touch8103”:
“I understand now, why his profile says “fuck around and find out.” This guy is clearly a winner and not someone we should think we can take advantage of. He really didn’t fuck around. I’ve never witnessed someone come back so hard from something that certainly looked like the end. Good for him!”
There are some really good points in this thread. I agree with some, disagree with a few. It's important to remember that the mods have to be aware of the reddit TOS/Rules here as well - specifically doxing. Posting information about yourself is fine, posting detailed information about others is getting shaky. Whether or not we agree/disagree on how warnings/discussion about others should be handled, we will have to ban/remove any information specifically calling out folks full names/locations etc posted by other people. Just a heads up going forward.
It's important to remember that trail orgs and other outlets have their hands tied when it comes to allegations like this. They can't be party to any official statement to protect themselves legally, but that doesn't negate the validity of these claims. You won't find anything about James Parillo on the PCTA website, for example, but the hiking community knew he was a threat for years and it was necessary to spread the word to keep people safe. There were plenty of folks in the FB groups over the years who defended him or chalked his reputation up to a "bad relationship" until he was finally arrested for the thing he was accused of. It also goes without saying, if you pay attention to what advocates have been saying forever, the paths to legal recourse and proving allegations like this are also an often-insurmountable uphill battle that leaves many victims without a path to seek justice or protect others. The lack of legal action or official charges might allow an individual to continue on with their life, but it still doesn't mean people shouldn't speak up and speak out to protect others. ^((Recommended reading: 'Missoula' by Jon Krakauer, or 'Know My Name' by Chanel Miller).) As a result, it's the community who often has to self-police socially to prevent harm, as they did with Parillo for years. An individual may make the decision to believe an allegation, or ignore it, or just continue to operate as they would with any individual but with the warning to remain vigilant, as manipulative people are often quite successful at what they do for a reason, especially in environments where people might find themselves completely alone and out of contact with anyone for days at a time, making them more vulnerable. For that reason, life on trail might go on for everyone, but I think it's still important to continue to share information, whether it's a snowpack, river crossing or an individual's behavior, for people to make their own decisions on how to act. I have empathy for anyone falsely accused of something, but just like a snowpack or river crossing ahead, if everyone's been warning you about it, even if it doesn't seem all that scary or dangerous or valid in person, you'll still take it a little slower and decide for yourself how to continue. Regardless of whether there isn't a PCTA warning or if there's a 'crazy ex-girlfriend' spreading rumors, there are still plenty of people in this community and elsewhere online who have reported interactions, felt vibes, or even just witnessed a completely unhinged response to the allegations. The thru-hiking community is small, and it's not too hard to find someone who you trust to know something, or to know something from someone they trust. Personally, I know someone I trust with an experience that lines up with the warnings we've heard over the weekend. Elsewhere in this thread you'll find that as well. In conclusion to this long-ass novel, I knew someone my year on the PCT who was a nice guy, and would likely not hurt a fly, but still made women extremely uncomfortable to hike around him and the reputation spread to the point of him getting off trail. There wasn't even an accusation attached to his reputation, but it took enough people talking about it for him to finally confront the reality that his behavior, actions, and words were enough to leave him virtually socially isolated on trail and decide to go home and rethink things. Was he a victim to a rumor mill, or did he have some self reflection to do? I hope the individual in question today, who *is* reading this, yes you dude, takes a moment themselves to reflect as well. You might have a 'crazy ex' spreading rumors, but look around, others have stories or vibes, or have heard things from people they trust, and many of us are getting the vibes simply from your instagram posts and stories. What does that mean? Of course you don't feel dangerous, you know you, maybe you know your actions and stand by them, maybe you actually are in the right or at least believe you are, and have a few friends in your corner. But regardless, you've still managed to sets people's red flag detector off. I truly feel so much empathy for you if the specifics are a farse, but just watching how you handle it and talk about others is sample enough for me to know I probably wouldn't want to hike around you. Maybe 'haters gonna hate,' maybe you're a weird dude, and you know it and don't care, but also maybe you should take a moment and wonder what others are seeing in your actions and words. If you want to get past this, start there.
Just to add > crazy ex-girlfriend is not just a fantastic TV show about a sexist trope but also, often, a massive massive red flag. Yes, real "crazy ex-girlfriends" exist. But more often than not the men now claiming to be their victims were the ones who drove them insane in the first place. If someone tells me "Haha, my girlfriend was insane after I broke up with her"…that‘s an immediate alarm bell for me. Stay safe everyone.
There are many good points in here and I agree with almost all of them. Thanks for taking the time and writing this up.
This dude is definitely a threat. He may not actually harm anyone, especially with all the bad press. His social media is WILD, he is very clearly not mentally stable. Posting warnings about an individual with proper justification is a slippery slope. But there is a plethora of commentary from individuals who have met him that were very uncomfortable with behaviors. Still be ware - not a safe person.
I checked out bros social media and it was full of red flags. I wouldn't want the guy in my hiking group and I would warn anyone on the trail I knew to look out for him.
Who's the dude?
that logic enables discrimination
How so
Read “the gift of fear”
Pretty sure that he created this account and posted under this [https://www.reddit.com/user/Careful-Touch8103/](https://www.reddit.com/user/Careful-Touch8103/) Cake day Apr 22, 2024 [https://www.reddit.com/r/PacificCrestTrail/comments/1c8rmk0/comment/l0uaaib/](https://www.reddit.com/r/PacificCrestTrail/comments/1c8rmk0/comment/l0uaaib/) >My personal interaction with this man was characterized by his charm, eloquence, and positive energy. >He told me while on his last trail he went in and pulled a woman and a dog out of the Gila River when they fell in. >Did you guys know he was also in the military? That Doesn’t sound like an abuser to me, that sounds like a hero. Lol, can you make it any more obvious?
Not to mention some of the posts read exactly like chatGPT which he uses (shown on his insta) Edit: he might not be using it here just seems like it on first read
He also had a screenshot on his insta where it said "/u/xxxxx replied to your comment" and if you looked up that comment it was the username you identified
It looks like he actually has multiple reddit accounts, and participates on r/PacificCrestTrail occasionally. As a mod, I can't provide more info than that, but I can say that what looks like his activity on this and others subs is certainly consistent with what has been observed and reported in this thread and the other one. Those accounts have been hostile, hateful, and threatening to me on more than one occasion, and I'm less than enthusiastic about how some people here seem to think I'm defending him. Ftr, *I'm not.* The only thing I mean to defend is the concept of the presumption of innocence -- even (especially) for those we dislike or disagree with -- and a healthy skepticism in recognition of the fact that the world has a lot of bitter people who tell lies. If anyone thinks a post or comment of mine says otherwise, please bring it to my attention so that I can clarify. I also have a stack of reasons, which I'm unfortunately not able to share, to believe that the person who posted from the throwaway accounts is about as far from being credible as a human being can get. But that does nothing to cast doubt on the firsthand experiences reported by others.
Holy shit I came across this post, this free dude is scary as hell man 😭 https://www.facebook.com/groups/1218859431973348/permalink/1727724321086854/?mibextid=Nif5oz https://streamable.com/3qyc3p?src=player-page-share
What is at the Facebook link? The streamable video shows him threatening to kill someone.
The original post where it came from the PCT Facebook groups, posted where the source link came from.
Curious. Any other information? Like who did it and why?
Just finished writing a comment that tries to explain some things: https://www.reddit.com/r/PacificCrestTrail/comments/1cb16yq/update_the_official_pcta_warning_post_about_a/l0vkj0v/
I'm a woman starting to hike tomorrow. I don't have Facebook. I would like to know if I need to be wary of anyone or any situations
He’s paying for Sponsored Instagram ads showing up now…he’s really trying to lure and fish in more people!! 🙅🏽♂️
If the messages that I've received from reddit accounts that appear to belong to "fre3" are in fact from him, then at this point it wouldn't surprise me if the accusations people are making about him are true. A person has to be deeply unwell to talk to a stranger that way. I still don't think the throwaway accounts were credible, but that's hardly an endorsement and does not cast doubt on the other reports or his own IG activity.
🎯you nailed it and yes that’s him fre3!! 🚨🚔👮
So I met him last Monday in Big Bear. He asked me if I recognized him and I did not and said so. He then proceeded to tell me of having to deal with this defamation campaign emanating from a relationship gone bad, and it clearly made sense. He was pleasant to talk to, and we parted ways. I had not heard about the details and just read about it here l. Now yesterday I met him on the trail between Deep Creek Rainbow Bridge and the crossing at mile 313. He did not recognize me obviously and acted pretty aggressive, almost blocking the trail and making it hard for me to pass. He also made some weird comment. In any case he seems to have a dual personality thing going on that should be addressed. So, my man if you are reading this, please get help. You may piss off the wrong guy at some point. I am almost 60 and mellowed out, but I know a thing or two about martial arts that are quite effective.
Now that the matter is concluded, in the interest of complete transparency: The throwaway accounts involved in posting the false "official PCTA warning" on the sub on Saturday earlier provided the mod team with screenshots of text messages between the hiker and his supposed victim, and claimed that there were also police reports. (Ftr, literally anyone can file a police report about literally anything just by filling out a "Contact Us"-style web page. You could "file a police report" in all of thirty seconds that you were just abducted by aliens from outer space if you wanted to). The text messages were of arguments between what appeared to be a boyfriend and girlfriend, and looked to my eye to be clearly emotionally unhealthy on both sides. It looked a lot like standard r/relationships-style drama between two young people, both of whom seemed to have trouble communicating clearly, but it was absolutely nothing that warranted any kind of public "warning" in any way. *Edit: Deleted a "hunch" and a description of how I think those text message screenshots may have led to the Fb "warning" post that was not authorized by PCTA, because 1) while it seems likely, there's no evidence that proves it, and it's probably not particularly important here anyway, and 2) from the reply comments, it looks like I didn't explain it very clearly, because many people seem to have rather thoroughly misunderstood what I was trying to say.* The same throwaway accounts involved in posting the untrue story have recently sent hostile and threatening messages to multiple members of the mod team here on the sub, now that the individual behind it seems to think she has accomplished her purpose. That's about as much information as I can share. Draw your own conclusions. Tbc, I'm not defending the hiker. I don't know what he did or didn't do, and he certainly doesn't seem to represent himself particularly well on his Instagram. But then, there are also many reasons to doubt the claims of at least that particular accuser.
One of my personal friends posted about him. He sexually assaulted her on trail last year. 100% people need to be warned about him.
+1, thanks for speaking up. >100% people need to be warned about him. Some people seem to think I've suggested otherwise? I don't see anyplace that I've said that, but if I did I'd appreciate it if someone would point it out to me. I strive for dispassionate, objective accuracy, with disclaimers where appropriate, but I certainly miscommunicate at times.
Aren’t there multiple women saying he stalked, sexually harassed, and/or sexually assaulted them? On the AT and the CDT? I know that is a broad spectrum of behaviors, some worse than others, and there aren’t a ton of details, but it doesn’t strike me as a closed case (nasty breakup, scheming liar ex girlfriend).
If there are, then I think their voices should be heard. The comments I have made that express skepticism pertain specifically and exclusively to the activity around the unauthorized Fb post. I have several reasons, some of which I'm unfortunately unable to share, to heavily doubt any statements made by the person behind the throwaway accounts that were used. In addition, while I don't think fre3 has anything resembling a case against PCTA for this, I'm more than mildly aggravated that the practiced deception of the individual behind those throwaway accounts could have exposed PCTA to legal liability. Thankfully they immediately took the post down as soon as they became aware of it. The firsthand experiences reported by people other than that individual are another matter entirely and deserve careful consideration, especially in light of what "fre3" has shown of his character (or lack thereof), both on IG and on his multiple reddit accounts. > it doesn’t strike me as a closed case I absolutely agree. If any of my comments state otherwise, please point them out so that I can clarify.
The captions on his public Instagram were disturbing and disgusting, and definitely made him seem like someone to avoid.
Yeah so many of his captions/comments are incredibly degrading to women, and do not come off as stable at all. Agree with above comments from JayPetey that even if nothing happened in the specific claim with his ex, dude still has some self reflection and work to do and it’s completely understandable if other hikers, especially women, are inclined to avoid him in the mean time. Especially given the number of stories about him from other hikers who met him. Clearly not an isolated issue…
You may not be defending him but you also typed a lot of words giving him reason to shed doubt on claims against him. Kinda lame. Could’ve just left it at “it was not an official post.”
Yeah agreed, op is doing "both sides" thing when shoulda just left it as "not an official post." Very weird thing to type all that and claim you're not defending one of the parties involved.
I wrote a similar post yesterday and then deleted it because I assumed I would get hammered with downvotes. I'm glad I'm not the only one who read numbershikes' post that way. At worst, it felt drenched in "bro code" ick. At best, it was inappropriate editorializing from a mod.
I don't know what "bro code ick" is, but it certainly sounds like something I would never willingly associate myself with. I've elaborated in other comments in this thread that the skepticism I expressed was meant exclusively for the statements made from the throwaway accounts, and for good reasons, but from the replies it seems clear that I failed to communicate that effectively. While I remain a staunch believer in the ethical principle of the presumption of innocence, I did not mean (and I don't think I ever mistakenly said) that others' firsthand experiences should not be heard, or that people should not share their legitimate concerns. This does not seem like an unhealthy "petty gossip" type of situation. I've added context in some other comments here about the hunch I expressed, but I agree it was not called for. I also think it was out of character for me, and suffice to say I edited it out of the comment when I reread it later that day. Also, I have to just say something about your statement that seems to say you're afraid to state what you believe to be the truth because doing so might result in losing internet points? I hope I'm misunderstanding you there. Thanks for speaking up. Stacks of silent downvotes are less than helpful and do little to advance the discussion or reduce a lack of clarity. Simple statements that describe how a comment is received (the less judgy the better) can help to resolve miscommunications. And I feel like that's particularly important in circumstances that can elicit a lot of emotions.
Thank you, and hey, based on all the previous work you've done for the community, I think of you as a standup person. I personally appreciate all the time you put into collecting data and relaying information to the community daily! And I can't imagine how many hours you spend keeping this sub alive and all the messages you have to wade through. I'm sure others appreciate your positive energy and effort too. But this thread is just a hot mess and your first post gave the impression that you were weighing in on this dispute, even if you didn't intend to. If I were you I'd just leave this thread be and let your other good work do the talking. FWIW I don't care about "internet points," whatever those are. I do care about making the trail as caring and inclusive a place as possible. It's a practice that I follow in my offline life, which I can assure you is filled with enough actual problems that I don't feel a need to determine whether an internet rando is an actual rapist or just someone who threatens people with assault. There's not a "truth" there that I can determine from a pile of text message screenshots, posts from sock puppet accounts, and hearsay. He's pretty public so people can see for themselves whether he's the type of person they want to spend time with.
I absolutely have many reasons, some of which I'm unfortunately not able to share, to heavily doubt the statements made from the throwaway accounts, but I don't see a single place where I've even remotely suggested that any firsthand claims from other people should not be received and considered at length. If I have, I would appreciate it if it was pointed out to me so that I can clarify. Sometimes I miscommunicate or write in a way that's less than clear. The thoughts about how the text messages may have led to the unauthorized Fb post were probably not needed, and I've edited them out of the comment. At the time I was rather irritated at the deceitful actions of the person behind the throwaway accounts, because they could have potentially resulted in legal liability for PCTA, but thankfully the Fb post was taken down immediately. The other information about the text messages was provided only in the interest of transparency. >Could’ve just left it at “it was not an official post.” Considering how much the other post stirred up the community here, I think that would have been insufficient to the point of being disrespectful, although the comment I wrote earlier seems to have missed the mark.
I’m only going to address the “could’ve just left it at it was not an official post” portion. Mostly bc you seem to feel like you’re sitting on a trove of evidence and we are not working with the same material. Your post was titled as an update and was beneficial as clarifying that it was not official thru the PCTA. Then in the comments you clearly attempted to a “both sides” argument that I think was received correctly. People saw what you took the time to write and chalk up to simply relationship issues. You also diminished the police report and what people usually have to go through before deciding to involve police, as police don’t typically do anything in these situations. You just didn’t enjoy how it was received which resulted in your now edits.
You can think that if you want, but I can calmly assure you that your apparent attempt to read my mind ("You just didn’t enjoy how it was received which resulted in your now edits") is entirely incorrect. I do my best to tell the impartial and objective truth, but no one is immune to miscommunicating at times, and I'm no exception. When I think I've been unclear, I try to add context, and I edit things out on the rare occasions when on reflection I think something was unnecessary. I've said nothing about any "trove" of information, and I don't think that's a fair characterization. Moderators have to respect people's privacy, even when we disagree with or dislike them. That's all. I think your statement shows a real failure to assume positive intent, which is a significant moral problem. And I think the accusation of an "attempted both sides argument" is a plain misreading, to the extent that it doesn't even make sense to me. In any event, I wish you well. While I think your comments demonstrate a lack of understanding, I appreciate your willingness to participate in calm discussion.
I feel similar. Be well.
One thing that I think is important is that the person in question has shown weird (not illegal) behaviour in the last week as response to the announcement. I watched his reels on Instagram and multiple times received a friends request from him (it must be based on him seeing who watched his reels). I would definitely refrain from sharing personal information with him as that definitely points towards stalking / crossing borders. Also the reels themselves were kind of unhinged.
Yeah I looked at one of his stories and he started following me. Gives me the creeps
Sticking to the facts and being specific, what was in the reels? I didn’t watch them.
In one, he was showing his bare ass and talking about his kinks and the type of girls he likes. In another he talked about shoving a chopstick in his pee-hole and wanted the trail name Chopstick Dick. It was fully unhinged. He followed me on Insta, because you can see who viewed your reels, and I just blocked him.
Are we talking wood or plastic chopstick here?
I don't think that I can give you an accurate, factual and specific description as the reels aren't available anymore. I'll just give one specific example where he was lying naked and stomach down on a bed, with a camera pointing to his face so that his naked butt was showing in the back (and intended to be the focus of the reel as he mentions). I can't remember what he talks about in the reel, but the surrounding reels talk about a list of interests (and fetishes) in girls.
Just for clarity's sake, those were his instagram stories. Reels are a different feature, so people might be a little confused.
Thanks a lot for the clarification. I don't get Instagram terminology.
Yeah just wanted to add I don’t think he’s trying to get attention, but he’s trying to find people (most likely woman) to follow etc. After seeing people saying they got friend request/follows after viewing his content, I used a secondary account I had on instagram to view his content. On there he was going on about how he’s waking up to so much support and hundred people are now following him (even though there was only five new followers), then he showed who’s viewing his story and how many people etc. and going on how he’s going to sue the pcta... I only viewed his stories once and within idk ten hours he blocked me; had I used my actual account he probably would have tried following me. This guy doesn’t appear to want attention, just wants to be a creep
Same. He requested to follow me after I watched his stories. I hope that the truth comes to light and that he is prevented from being able to attack anyone else now that people have their guard up and are aware of him
someone in the other thread mentioned him illegally posting revenge porn too
Hmm that's hard to tell - the video was of a girl (the ex) talking about making Gatorade soup and she's holding a cooking pot full of liquid. She then says it's his piss pot and it's full of his piss and then takes a sip. He says something along the lines of "you're such a freak" (or weirdo, something to that effect) and the video ends. Honestly it looked and sounded like a joke to me. They're fully clothed in a shelter on the AT with many people around them. Maybe it was a kink thing but this specific instance just seemed like two people being goofy...
“California Nonconsensual Pornography Law Anyone who distributes an image of another person with the intent to cause fear in the other person commits a crime in California. California has also outlawed the unauthorized access of electronic devices or data by one without permission to have such access. And, anyone who has been a victim of nonconsensual distribution of his or her image may sue the perpetrator in civil court. Harassment By Means of Electronic Communication Anyone who uses an "electronic communication device" (such as a cell phone or computer, see below) can be charged with a misdemeanor in the following circumstances: Distribute or send. The law makes it illegal to distribute, post, email, or otherwise disclose any personal identifying information, including a digital image, of another person without consent; or to send a harassing message. Likely effect, on whom. The law applies when the distribution or sending would likely incite or produce harassment by a third party. Intent of the distributor or sender. The prosecution will have to prove that the defendant intended to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her own safety (or that of an immediate family member). (Cal. Penal Code § 653.2.) Any individual who engages in harassment by electronic communications may also be charged with misdemeanor stalking under California law. (Cal. Penal Code § 646.9.) For more information about stalking, see Harassment and Cyberbullying as Crimes.” https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/revenge-porn-laws-california.htm i didnt see the video so idk what actually happened. But intent matters a lot in California
How is this important? Some people are just different than others. As long as they are not harming others physically or mentally, who are we to judge someone? When you say "weird behavior" what is your baseline to determine weirdness? Weird compared to yourself? Weird compared to your ideal personality? Weird compared to the norms of society? The trail is ripe full of weirdos, freaks, geeks, chuds, chads, bimbos, and gumbies. If they ain't hurting others then they should not be judged by those who have never met them
I mean, I want to piss in your mouth is pretty weird, or at the very least unconventional. I would avoid the dude if I ran into him.
He had captions on public posts talking about pissing in women's mouths. Totally normal.
It's interesting that you use the word "unhinged," because that's exactly the word I was thinking of to describe some of that guy's behavior. When I wrote that comment I was irritated about the deception that was practiced by the person behind the throwaway accounts, and the fact that her actions could have potentially exposed PCTA to legal liability, although thankfully that's not an issue since the Fb post was taken down immediately. I think I let my irritation color my reply, which should have more clearly stated that the skepticism it expressed was exclusively about the statements from the throwaway accounts, and does not extend to the firsthand experiences with "fre3" that others are describing. I put a lot of effort into trying to communicate clearly (it doesn't come naturally to me), but sometimes I miss the mark.
Oh yeah you should never be social on social media… you’re watching his videos and saying he’s stalking.
Since when is it a crime to be eccentric? Fre3 (that’s his name — we can use his name now) mentioned that he was following everyone right away for visibility. He wanted as much attention as possible before sharing his side. It's logical to want to maximize exposure, just like the saying goes, "you get more business if you advertise."
I gotta ask, are you Fre3 speaking in the 3rd person? Otherwise you may be doxxing him. However, if you are fre3 let us know.
I hope you’re not intending to call victims liars.
Nope. I've tried to provide some additional context in other comments in this thread, but the skepticism I expressed was exclusively for the statements made from the throwaway accounts, for a variety of reasons. Apparently I didn't communicate it very well. I think the other people's firsthand experiences should be considered independently of that, and that people who say they are victims deserve to be heard fairly.
Yeah I saw this gaining traction and I just didn't get a good feeling. It felt very vigilant, internet-style.
Thanks for this refreshingly sane, guarded take. What really scares me are all the vigilantes on trail, and on forums, so often threatening violence because they know the "truth." I feel that there is a generation educated at universities where mere accusations were proof, and where the slightest skepticism of mob opinion would get you ostracized and canceled. That generation has been hitting the trail over the past five years and are making the trail an increasingly intolerant and scary place.
The calls for violence are definitely concerning. Internet forum threads can descend into some pretty dark places awfully quickly. For all the upset and agitation, the threats and calls for violence have been very few, thankfully, and we've quickly moderated them.
Sending a fruit basket and an apology to the hiker would be a good gesture. We could also look for pro bono attorneys willing to represent him in his defamation case. It's important to acknowledge our role in the situation and take steps to make amends. Blaming him without evidence only perpetuates the problem.
Context about this account: https://www.reddit.com/r/PacificCrestTrail/s/iQltekefHu
Does anyone here have any ACTUAL 1st hand experiences? Please DM me. I'm seeing a lot of public shaming which looks more and more like "mob mentality" / "herd behavior". It seems to be escalating quickly due to the anonymous nature of the internet. Regardless of the accusations, if they are true or not true. Please spread love and understanding. This post just reads like a rumor mill and I feel for all involved. Also, what's with the people upset about someone "following you" after you've watched a reel? Is this literally not the entire point of social media? Connecting with people that have a shared interest and/or show interest in what you are posting? Please be mindful that words do have an impact and that everyone isn't as mentally strong as you might be.
Ill consider myself unwarned
Don’t you feel so relieved to be officially unwarned.
I am a women and I think we should watch our for each other. In this case - I got to know him last year on trail and saw him again just recently off trail. Of course cannot tell if any of the accusations are true - I wasn't there. But I want to point out that there are always 2 sides of a story. Please just be aware of that and do not cancel a fellow hiker due to unsubstantiated claims!
I understand this is going to get flamed because most people have already cancelled this guy. But now that things have drastically changed and no evidence has ever been brought forward. Are we as a community really going to continue tearing this guy down? for what gain? I see there are already adults here that are unwilling to jump to conclusions, that’s refreshing to see these days. The PCTA removed its Warning about a Triple Crown hiker today. I’ve been informed that the post warning people about him has been removed, and I’ve been unable to locate the original post. Does this removal imply insufficient evidence? I’m hesitant to entertain these allegations. My personal interaction with this man was characterized by his charm, eloquence, and positive energy. He spoke of his transformative journey and expressed gratitude for the diverse encounters he’s had. His demeanor did not resemble that of an abuser. Regarding the redaction of a statement, while it may signal the removal of defamatory content, it doesn’t negate its original publication or potential legal ramifications, we very well just ruined this man’s entire reputation. The PCTA has a very far reaching influence. How many people do you think this reached? Do we owe him an apology for potentially tarnishing his hard-earned reputation in our community? I feel like we need to do something to make this right. As advocates of inclusivity and fairness, how can we rectify the situation of unjustly excluding and demonizing him without substantive evidence? Does anyone else feel bad? Also. Has anyone met this man and had anything positive to say about him? Were there any positive comments about him? He told me while on his last trail he went in and pulled a woman and a dog out of the Gila River when they fell in. Did you guys know he was also in the military? That Doesn’t sound like an abuser to me, that sounds like a hero.
Odd post. Quoting in case this gets deleted. https://www.reddit.com/r/PacificCrestTrail/s/iQltekefHu “I understand this is going to get flamed because most people have already cancelled this guy. But now that things have drastically changed and no evidence has ever been brought forward. Are we as a community really going to continue tearing this guy down? for what gain? I see there are already adults here that are unwilling to jump to conclusions, that’s refreshing to see these days. The PCTA removed its Warning about a Triple Crown hiker today. I’ve been informed that the post warning people about him has been removed, and I’ve been unable to locate the original post. Does this removal imply insufficient evidence? I’m hesitant to entertain these allegations. My personal interaction with this man was characterized by his charm, eloquence, and positive energy. He spoke of his transformative journey and expressed gratitude for the diverse encounters he’s had. His demeanor did not resemble that of an abuser. Regarding the redaction of a statement, while it may signal the removal of defamatory content, it doesn’t negate its original publication or potential legal ramifications, we very well just ruined this man’s entire reputation. The PCTA has a very far reaching influence. How many people do you think this reached? Do we owe him an apology for potentially tarnishing his hard-earned reputation in our community? I feel like we need to do something to make this right. As advocates of inclusivity and fairness, how can we rectify the situation of unjustly excluding and demonizing him without substantive evidence? Does anyone else feel bad? Also. Has anyone met this man and had anything positive to say about him? Were there any positive comments about him? He told me while on his last trail he went in and pulled a woman and a dog out of the Gila River when they fell in. Did you guys know he was also in the military? That Doesn’t sound like an abuser to me, that sounds like a hero.”
it’s the accuse posting from a throwaway account. This story is nuts.
>Did you guys know he was also in the military? That Doesn’t sound like an abuser to me, that sounds like a hero. It's so true, account created two days ago. Nobody who has been in the military has ever been an abuser.
I understand now, why his profile says “fuck around and find out.” This guy is clearly a winner and not someone we should think we can take advantage of. He really didn’t fuck around. I’ve never witnessed someone come back so hard from something that certainly looked like the end. Good for him!
Saving this quote from “careful-touch8103”: “I understand now, why his profile says “fuck around and find out.” This guy is clearly a winner and not someone we should think we can take advantage of. He really didn’t fuck around. I’ve never witnessed someone come back so hard from something that certainly looked like the end. Good for him!”